James Carlson wrote: > Glenn Fowler writes: > > so by empirical evidence two assertions flying on this thread are false: > > (1) solaris posix_spawn() is ok to use > > (2) solaris vfork() == fork() > > Time for a consolidation check. ;-} > > Things may be different in other consolidations, but within ON, it is > not generally acceptable just to "work around" problems found in the > system.
We do not work around the problem. We use the default configuration and do not change it (remember the whole debate about libcmd: We do not want to fork the ksh sources). The current configuration for Solaris doesn't use |posix_spawn()| (yet). > The project team must (1) file a bug (or bugs) on the problems > encountered with posix_spawn and Ok... > (2) be ready to explain why fixing > the problem or being dependent on the fix is not desirable. See above. We do not want to fork the ksh sources (except the Makefiles needed for OS/Net). Other issue is the backport - the current ksh93-integration sources are designed to work cleanly on Solaris 10. Switching ksh93 on OS/Net to use |posix_spawn()| should therefore happen after the initial putback, otherwise we have to handle the difference somehow else, making the backport much more compliciated (unless the change to |posix_spawn()| gets backported, too (which will be tricky since the feature patch for ksh93 would then depend on a specific libc update... oh fun... ;-( )). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
